After Husband Agrees, Kerala HC Allows Correction Of Father's Name In Birth Certificate Of Child Born Out Of Extra-Marital Affair

The Kerala High Court recently invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to order correction of the name of the father in the birth certificate of a minor child, who was born out of an extra-marital affair of the child's mother.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a writ petition filed by the minor child and her biological parents. They sought to correct the name of the father in the birth certificate from that of her mother's former husband to that of the child's biological father.

The mother of the minor child was initially married to the 4^th respondent in the plea. In their marriage, a male child was born and he is now an adult. After the marriage, the 4^th respondent was working in Bangalore and according to the mother, he was not fulfilling his duties as a husband and a father.

During the subsistence of her marriage with the 4^th respondent, the minor daughter was born. The birth certificate of the child showed the 4^th respondent as the father. However, according to the mother, the 2^nd petitioner was the biological father. Around 6 years later, the mother of the child and the 4^th respondent obtained a divorce by mutual consent. Subsequently, the child's biological parents got married.

According to them, the school authorities of the child informed that the child will not be permitted to continue her studies if the birth certificate containing proper name of father is not produced. Hence, they came before the High Court.

The Court referred to various case laws, including AAA v. State of Kerala, and remarked that government circular dated 16.12.2015 mandates that if father's name was to be changed in the birth records, there is no automatic process but a DNA test report, an agreement attested before a Notary Public, and an order from a competent court must to be produced.

The Court deprecated the attitude of the biological parents of the minor child since it felt that the ground taken to seek correction of the birth certificate was untrue. It remarked:

“The ground mentioned in the writ petition is that the school authorities stated that the child will not be allowed to study unless the father's name is changed. I cannot believe the petitioners' statements. How do the school authorities know that the fourth respondent is not the father of the third petitioner, unless the petitioners also made it public to the school authorities? Moreover, it is difficult to accept the petitioners' claim that the school authorities insist that the father's name of the third petitioner is to be changed to allow the child to continue at the school. Therefore, the attitude of petitioners 1 and 2 is to be deprecated, and they are not entitled to any relief from this Court, as this Court is exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a discretionary jurisdiction.”

However, the Court felt that extraordinary jurisdiction can be invoked so as to give justice to the minor child and her mother's former husband.

“The counsel who appeared for the 4th respondent submitted before this Court that his client has no objection to the correction of the birth certificate as prayed for by petitioners 1 and 2. That is the gentlemanly attitude of the 4th respondent. Moreover, the 3rd petitioner is a minor girl. I do not want her to be in an embarrassing situation when she becomes major, if the father's name is not correctly mentioned in the birth register. Therefore, considering the plight of the minor child and the gentlemanly attitude of the 4th respondent, I think the correction can be allowed, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. If this court finds an injustice to a citizen, it can step in to redress it and ensure complete justice. This court must also imagine the minor child's future,” the Court added.

The Court also criticized the attitude of the child's biological parents, who did not think to mask her name while preferring the plea. It then directed the Registry to mask the names of the minor and that of the 4^th respondent/former husband. The direction as regard the minor's name was made exercising the principle of 'parens patriae'.

The plea was disposed of observing that the petitioners can prefer an application before the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation concerned to correct the name of the father.

If such an application is received, the competent authority is to make a suitable entry in the margin of the register without any alteration of the original entry and to sign the marginal entry. Based on the correction, a fresh birth certificate is to be issued within 30 days, the Court ordered.

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 122

Counsel for the petitioners: Happymon Babu, Blessy Mary Sebastian

Counsel for the respondents: Santhosh P. Poduval, Sruthy Saijo, Jahra K., Vidya Kuriakose – Sr. Government Pleader

Click to Read/Download Judgment